LAPD Still Won't Get Vaccinated (lawsuit, best, winter)

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by Kid Ashbury

Most of the vaxx rats are utterly incapable of squaring this in their heads. When faced with the fact that the "vaccines" do not prevent infection or prevent transmission to others, and are thus not actual effective vaccines, they lash out angrily.

When you realize the vax rat's argument is basically "the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn't protect the protected" it's clear as day that these are not people capable of thinking for themselves.

Do you see everything in your life in terms of absolutes? In other words, things "either work or they don't"? The simple point is that its a question of percentages. The vaccines give those who take them a high degree of protection. They do not protect every single person who gets vaccinated from the possibility of getting Covid 19. However, the more people who do vaccinate, the greater will be the degree of protection for everyone.

I get so tired of people who point to cases of Covid contracted by those who have vaccinated and insist based on that that "vaccines don't work" or my favorite one is "why do you worry about non-vaccinators if you are vaccinated"? I have just explained why it isn't that simple.

[2sleepy]

It looks like California Prison Guards lost their fight against being vaccinated, a federal judge ordered prison staff, inmates working outside the prison and inmates who want in person visits to get vaccinated: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...254569157.html

[Nyfinestbxtf]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

1) The pandemic will not end if the virus is constantly spreading to many people. That means collective 'punishment' with things like face mask requirements in non-medical settings.
2) No vaccine that I know of is 85% effective against the Delta variant 6 months in. I think only Moderna peaks at that level, a few months in.

This virus is already spreading and infecting the vaccinated and the vaccinated are spreading the virus to the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

No one knows how long the immunity and effectiveness of the vaccine and natural immunity will be. It is all a guess right now.

So the purpose for the mask isn’t to help with slowing the spread of covid, but rather as a punishment for the unvaccinated? That sounds scientific to me. Well, in regards to masks, there is zero evidence of them slowing the spread of Covid. None.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Here's a recent case where a federal court denied a religious based exemption to vaccination. What will control the number of these cases is the cost involved in bringing such a lawsuit.


https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

The UMass cases isn't quite the same controversy as in the thread topic, a city (the employer) mandating vaccines for their public employees.



To be clear too, only one of the plaintiffs in the above case sought a religious exemption (Catholic) which was rightfully denied by UMass. The other didn't. The basis of their suit was a bit weak too. In a nutshell, they argued that failing the vaccine requirement, they would face "expulsion". The reason that didn't float was because there were online options available. The due process claims were rejected for a variety of reasons, none which are outstanding or surprising. College is essentially a business and not acting under color of authority of the state. So this is more akin to a private entity mandating its customers be vaccinated.



But it is interesting to note that (at the time it was filed), unionized staff wasn't under a vaccine requirement at the schools in question. Only contractors and non-union workers along with the students were mandated to be vaccinated. The court's response to *that* in particular is sort of interesting and maybe barely applicable going forward.



But this case was weak from the get go since there was no discernible opposition to vaccines emanating from the Catholic faith to lift the religious exemption off the ground. IMO, plaintiff would've been better off not claiming any organized mainstream faith as she did.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

I’m under the impression with your previous post that those who qualify for a religious exemption being sued for the legitimacy of their religious exemption. If so, That will bog down the court system. All for what?

Religious exemption is very vague, and even faiths which typically reject medicine (i.e. Christian Science, etc.) aren't specifically opposed to vaccines. That fractures the argument and possible litigation into a million little pieces since it all boils down to personal beliefs. It certainly would strengthen an individual's own case if they could claim some connection to a well-known faith that has some minimal, tangible objection to medicine, but it's not requisite the way I'm seeing it.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by (901)

Or if you have a history of never getting a vaccine in your adult life.

Problem with that is vaccine schedules begin well before adulthood so "in your adult life" would be very limiting.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by Nyfinestbxtf

This virus is already spreading and infecting the vaccinated and the vaccinated are spreading the virus to the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

No one knows how long the immunity and effectiveness of the vaccine and natural immunity will be. It is all a guess right now.

So the purpose for the mask isn’t to help with slowing the spread of covid, but rather as a punishment for the unvaccinated? That sounds scientific to me. Well, in regards to masks, there is zero evidence of them slowing the spread of Covid. None.

1) I put "punishment" in quotes for a reason. I am not an anti-masker.
2) I have heard no reports where COVID-19 definitely spread between vaccinated people, and I'd be surprised if it isn't very rare in people who were vaccinated less than 6 months before.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It looks like California Prison Guards lost their fight against being vaccinated, a federal judge ordered prison staff, inmates working outside the prison and inmates who want in person visits to get vaccinated: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...254569157.html

Newsom too.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Religious exemption is very vague, and even faiths which typically reject medicine (i.e. Christian Science, etc.) aren't specifically opposed to vaccines. That fractures the argument and possible litigation into a million little pieces since it all boils down to personal beliefs. It certainly would strengthen an individual's own case if they could claim some connection to a well-known faith that has some minimal, tangible objection to medicine, but it's not requisite the way I'm seeing it.

They probably would need an affidavit from, for instance, a religious official in a local congregation or a history of requesting time off work for religious reasons, plus the faith would have to be documented as somewhat against vaccines.

I think some police need to think this through more, in terms of backlash from HQ and the court system if they try to be exempted for illegitimate beliefs. Nobody wants dishonest cops on the force.

[(901)]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Problem with that is vaccine schedules begin well before adulthood so "in your adult life" would be very limiting.

No it wouldn't. Millions get the flu shot every year. I never have and never will.